If he will provide an additional allowance to those in receipt of income support in rural areas of Scotland to take account of the essential travel costs that they incur; and if he will make a statement. [136321]

No. The Government and the Scottish Executive have other measures in place to help rural areas.

That is a rather disappointing if forthright answer. I remind the Minister of the first report of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs which identified car ownership as essential even for poor people in rural areas, and transport as a specific problem. The Government have pursued a policy of consistently increasing transport costs across the board, applying the inflation addition only to the increase in benefits. Is it not time that representations were made to the Secretary of State for Social Security to review the extent to which that has increased poverty in rural Scotland?

Before coming here, I took the precaution of checking on comparative petrol prices, and I was interested to learn that the Esso filling station in Inverurie, where the hon. Gentleman's face is undoubtedly well kent, is selling unleaded petrol at 81.9p a litre, which is exactly the same as in West Hampstead. Therefore, it is difficult to say that rural motoring costs are more expensive than urban motoring costs. I also note today that the Liberal Democrats in Anniesland are against means-testing for pensioners and those in receipt of other benefits. I cannot think of a more divisive piece of means-testing anywhere in the country than giving people on income support additional help with motoring costs while not giving it to those who are not.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Chancellor's package last week will make a big difference to rural motorists in my constituency and elsewhere? However, he will be aware that there is a big discrepancy in petrol pricing between my constituency and the rest of Scotland, a matter which is being investigated by the Office of Fair Trading. When will that report be finished, and will my hon. Friend undertake to take whatever action is recommended by the OFT as quickly as possible?

I am well aware of that report, which I await with keen interest. My hon. Friend is right: there is a huge discrepancy in petrol prices within what is generically known as rural areas and, for instance, between the Western Isles and places such as Inverness and Inverurie. My primary concern in the matter is the genuinely peripheral areas where people are paying perhaps 10p a litre more than they are in what are sometimes called rural areas but which offer urban prices, and I want to tackle that differential. There is a real case for the OFT to investigate in the Western Isles, and I for one will be extremely curious to discover why filling stations with large volume turnover which are not paying a higher wholesale price than on the mainland are charging much higher retail prices.

I congratulate you on your appointment, Mr. Speaker, as this is the first time that I have been here since your elevation to your post.

Oh really.

I am honest.

I agree with the hon. Lady's basic point. Through the new deal and other innovative approaches by the Employment Service and the Benefits Agency, help is available to people looking for jobs, and it is right that that should be so, whatever their specific needs and whether they are in rural or urban areas. If that helps people to obtain sustainable employment, that is a cost worth paying. Price differentials between areas need to be tackled, but we should not forget that taxation is the same throughout the country, so wherever else the differentials come from, they do not come through the tax system.

My hon. Friend is fully aware that fuel costs impact not only on private motorists but on business. Within the past 60 days, however, it has been drawn to my attention that some small businesses, usually in the habit of receiving bulk deliveries, have found that a few companies have escalated fuel prices for them, and it is cheaper to buy fuel at local filling stations. Surely that merits an investigation into what those fuel companies are doing.

It is certainly not part of my role to defend every action of the fuel companies. I shall be pleased to refer my hon. Friend's comments to the Department of Trade and Industry.

It is interesting to hear the Minister avoiding the question again and again. I am not sure whether he has got his facts right about the filling station in Inverurie. I happen to know it well because my late grandmother-in-law used to own and operate it. [Laughter.] I do not see what is funny about that. She used to own it and serve the petrol there. If hon. Members had ever been to Inverurie, they would have seen her.

We have been waiting for some time to ascertain the Tories' remaining connections in Scotland. The hon. Lady had not previously struck me as a quine from Inverurie, but I am sure that she is proud of the designation. I received the figure from Inverurie shortly before lunch; unless a rapid price escalation has occurred in the meantime, my facts are right.

If he will make a statement on employment trends in Scotland.[136322]

Employment in Scotland is at record levels, with 2,376,000 people in work and an employment rate of 73.4 per cent. I do not have the breakdown of figures for Inverurie, but I can write to my hon. Friend if he wishes.

Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will continue to promote policies such as the new deal, which has helped 25,000 young Scots from welfare into work, and the working families tax credit, which helps up to 100,000 Scottish families? Will he decisively reject the Conservative party's policies to scrap the valuable allowances and schemes? Such policies would return us to the era of mass unemployment and despair. Will my right hon. Friend turn his back on that?

Yes, I can promise my hon. Friend that I will do that. I believe that we are beginning to benefit not only from the new deal but from the stable economic framework that the Government have created and that has resulted in the highest employment that we have ever had in Scotland and the lowest unemployment since 1976. It is worth emphasising that the reduction in unemployment is not only good in itself, but, along with the reduction in debt, allows us to put money towards vital services such as education, health and transport that are benefiting from the tough decisions that were taken. Rather than spending up to 50p in every pound of taxpayers' money on debt repayment and unemployment, we are allowed to put 83p of every pound towards vital public services.

Although I welcome the trend, I hope that the Secretary of State acknowledges that we must never become complacent, and that we must ensure that every possible job in Scotland is available. To that end, what role does the Secretary of State play in ensuring that the United Kingdom Government have a coherent policy on the dispersal of civil servants' jobs? Is he worried about the report in The Herald in Glasgow about the apparent decision of the Department for International Development not to locate jobs in Scotland because of the anxiety about the lack of a talented work force there? Will he ensure that his colleagues understand that Scotland is an excellent place in which to locate work and that it has a talented work force? Will he also ensure that the Government have a coherent strategy for dispersing civil servants' jobs?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the Government should, whenever possible, help to support British industry and disperse jobs. On dispersal of jobs to Scotland, the Department for International Development has as good a record as any other Department, or even a better one. As he will know, there is a major section of the DFID at East Kilbride. Moreover, thousands upon thousands of jobs in Scotland depend directly or indirectly on the Government and the civil service through Departments such as the Ministry of Defence. I am glad that the Government have been fighting to create jobs in the public and private sectors, such as with the recent decision to award a contract to the Govan shipyard, which can secure the future of that shipyard.

The Secretary of State has probably just answered my question. I was going to ask him whether he agrees with me that one of the biggest boosts to employment in the Glasgow area has been the recent welcome decision by the Ministry of Defence to award a substantial order to BAE Systems in Govan. Will he join me in congratulating the work force on their valiant efforts to secure that vital order? Will he tell the House how many such contracts would come to Scotland if it were not part of the United Kingdom?

As my hon. Friend feels that I have already dealt with his first question, perhaps I should answer the second. In the unfortunate circumstance of an SNP-dominated, separate Scotland, very few people would be involved in building the three rowing boats that would presumably form the basis of the SNP navy sailing endlessly between Gourock and Dunoon to bring security to the people of Scotland.

Is the Secretary of State aware that unemployment levels in 15 English constituencies and 6 constituencies in London are higher than the highest in Scotland, which regrettably is, I believe, your constituency, Mr. Speaker? Does the Secretary of State attribute that to the enormous amount of public money that pours north from England to assist with the process? If so, what will he do to put that injustice right and to ensure that a proper amount of public money is spent south of the border to give us the benefits that Scotland has had?

I would be the first to accept that there are pockets of unemployment in England and in the London area that are as bad or worse than in many parts of Scotland. We have constantly made the point that the difference within regions is as big as the difference between regions. The right hon. Gentleman asks me to attribute blame for those circumstances. Without being churlish, I contend that the blame lies with 18 years of Conservative government.

To take up the theme of injustice, does the Secretary of State agree with me that one of the greatest injustices was the lack of a national minimum wage? Under this Government, more than 140,000 Scots earn at least £3.70 an hour, whereas in the days of the previous Government it did not matter to them that some people earned only 70p an hour.

I entirely agree. There were those on the Opposition Benches who predicted that if we introduced a decent minimum wage, we would lose hundreds of thousands of jobs. That has not happened. We have introduced a wage level below which people should not be forced to drop—it is the first time in British history that that has been the case—and, at the same time, created many thousands more jobs than would otherwise have been created. It is a pity, indeed a tragedy, that so many of the things that we are now able to build up because of the hard decisions that we made at an early stage would be abolished by a Conservative Government. I am thinking not just of the new deal, but of many of the benefits that we have been able to hand out to pensioners—including, of course, the winter fuel allowance.

What recent discussions he has had with the First Minister about proposals to give MSPs greater access to the civil service. [136323]

My right hon. Friend has regular discussions with the First Minister on a wide range of matters.

I think it quite important for us to know the answer to this question, rather than any other. Has the Minister discussed with the First Minister that First Minister's proposals to politicise the Scottish civil service?

Not for the first time and doubtless not for the last, the hon. Gentleman is proceeding on the basis of a misapprehension. No such proposal has been made, and my colleague the First Minister is far too experienced to want for one moment to politicise the civil service any more than the civil service would want or allow him to politicise it.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, during my rather brief spell as a Minister in the Scottish Executive, I authorised a number of briefings for Tory and nationalist MSPs by the civil service? I am not sure whether anyone was any wiser as a result; we can but hope.

I like to think of my hon. Friend as having been given remission. It is very nice to have him back with us.

May I take up the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne)? Will the Minister please confirm the position relating to the Scottish civil service? The Prime Minister told me in a written answer on 6 November that it was part of the home civil service. Does that mean that responsibility for adherence to the civil service code rests with the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State, rather than with the First Minister? May we have that clarified now?

I thought that the hon. Gentleman was going to tell us that his grandfather owned a sweetie shop in Friockheim. But, as he says, the Scottish Executive civil service is part of the home civil service, and responsibility for it lies with the head of it, the Cabinet Secretary. The Cabinet Secretary has made it clear, in the most unequivocal terms, that there was no intention and no attempt to politicise the service—and nor will there be in the future, on the part of any section of this Government.

I am grateful to the Minister for that assurance, but may we now have an assurance that the next time the First Minister starts making a fool of himself in the way he did just before taking office, it will be the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister who point out to him that the civil service code is the responsibility of this House, and that ultimately, if decisions in favour of changes are made, they will be made through the Cabinet Secretary, the Prime Minister and, if necessary, the Secretary of State?

My hon. Friend the First Minister took over that position in circumstances that none of us wanted. He is doing an extremely good job in a statesman-like manner.

Pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde of 25 July 2000, Official Report, column 888, how many cases, in which she has intervened, have been referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. [136346]

Five of the cases in which I have intervened have been referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

Is not there likely to be a build-up in the number of cases referred to the Judicial Committee, largely as a result of the incorporation of the European convention on human rights into Scottish—and United Kingdom—law, and the establishment of a human rights commission for Scotland? Is the Judicial Committee the best means of resolving such cases, or should we reconsider setting up a constitutional court to deal with such matters?

That matter and others were fully discussed recently in our long debates on the Scotland Act 1998. I agree that in the foreseeable future there is likely to be an increase in the number of cases. Indeed, in view of the fact that a new jurisdiction is involved, that is inevitable. One reason for referring such cases to the Privy Council is to help to clarify some difficult issues—I hope that that will happen

When she last met the chairman of the Scottish Criminal Injuries Compensation Board to discuss the impact of human rights legislation on its work; and if she will make a statement. [136347]

I have not met the chairman of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. The board was responsible for applications made before 1 April 1996. Applications made on or after 1 April 1996 are determined by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. The board was wound up on 31 March 2000, at which point the remaining board cases were transferred to the authority. I have not met the chief executive of the authority.

I am sorry to hear that my hon. and learned Friend has not met the chairman of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. I would like to meet him myself to discuss a problem involving one of my constituents, who was sexually abused for 12 years. The paedophile was convicted in court but did not receive a custodial sentence. My constituent went to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board to obtain proper compensation, but she was denied that and given a pittance. The Scottish Criminal Injuries Compensation Board denied my constituent her human rights. Will my hon. and learned Friend pass my concerns to the chairman of the compensation authority, whom I would like to meet to discuss the case?

I appreciate my hon. Friend's work on behalf of his constituent. It would not be appropriate for me to comment on an individual case. An appeals structure is, of course, associated with the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, and my hon. Friend will doubtless advise his constituent of that. I am sure that his remarks will be noted by the chairman.

Is not part of the problem that was raised in the question that the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) put to the Advocate-General related to the fact that a rigid application of the tariff structure is made in relation to the assessment of compensation for criminal injury? Is it not time to return to the situation that existed before the previous Government changed the system, which allowed those responsible for assessing compensation to do so at large, not according to rigid structures involving tariffs?

The right hon. and learned Gentleman—or my friend, as I like to call him—is well aware that policy issues in that context are, of course, a matter for the Home Secretary and Ministers of the Scottish Executive.

How many actions under the Human Rights Act 1998 have been brought before the Scottish courts; and if she will make a statement.[136348]

Unlike the situation involving devolution issues under the Scotland Act 1998, not all actions under the Human Rights Act 1998 are required to be intimated to me. I am therefore not in a position to give a figure for the number of cases brought in the first six weeks after the Human Rights Act 1998 fully came into force. However, my experience of the Scotland Act suggests that it is likely that people will not be slow to bring human rights issues to the courts.

Can the hon. and learned Lady tell the House whether any actions, such as road traffic cases, have been delayed by the introduction of the measure into Scots law?

As the hon. Lady may know, the road traffic case was before the Privy Council last week. Indeed, I appeared personally in that case for a number of days. We are waiting for a decision from the Privy Council. The matter has come to the highest court, through the Scottish court system, relatively quickly.

What progress is being made to improve the services of the Office of Supervision of Solicitors. [136350]

The number of complaints has come down from 17,074 to 7,728 and the OSS may be on target to hit the numerical figure of 6,000 by December this year. However, the Government continue to have very serious concerns about the quality of the complaints process. The only way to improve complaints handling is to resolve clients' problems at source, by instilling an ethos of client care throughout the legal profession.

My hon. Friend will know that the OSS is based in my constituency, and I hope that he will agree that many of its staff are making valiant efforts to reach the targets that are set, but is he considering other reforms that may help to make further progress—for example, restructuring the funding and possibly using a polluter pays principle in relation to the fees paid by solicitors?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his suggestion. He has been diligent in supporting the staff who work at the OSS, which, as he says, is in his constituency. It is right to say that the OSS and its predecessor were underfunded in the past and that clients suffered from a second-rate service as a result. I agree that there is a strong case for looking at the funding and the resources needed to operate the complaints and regulation arm of the Law Society. Perhaps those matters should be fixed by the OSS itself, then levied on the professions, rather than those who are regulated setting the resources available to the regulator, as is the current position.

Will the Minister consider the case of a solicitor in private practice who has intervened in good faith in another failing practice to try to rescue the situation? In such a case, would his advice to the OSS be that it should continue to support that solicitor in trying to rescue the firm in difficulty?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue. Where a solicitor's practice has to be intervened upon, by definition the public have been let down by the legal profession and the duty that the legal profession as a whole has to the clients who have been let down does not stop when the new solicitor is brought in. I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that the new solicitor has a duty to do his best for the clients he inherits, but the profession as a whole, through the OSS, must take all reasonable steps to support that solicitor and to provide him with the assistance necessary to make up for the damage that has been done previously.

What further steps she proposes to take to reduce the time taken by her Department in dealing with immigration case appeals. [136353]

May I take this opportunity—the first that has been presented to me—to welcome you to your new role, Mr. Speaker, and to congratulate you on your election as Speaker?

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does she recognise that we inherited a real mess when we took over government in May 1997, and that it is absolutely essential that we take such steps if justice is not to be denied? Although I recognise that not all the delays are in her Department, what will be its target for dealing with such immigration case appeals to show that we are delivering the justice that she would like to see?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The aim of the one-stop appeal process, which we introduced in October, is to streamline appeals to provide exactly that faster, more efficient service to genuine applicants, while reducing the opportunity for spurious appeals. It is worth reminding the House that applicants must now disclose all their grounds for appeal at the beginning of the appeal process, which allows for only one appeal decision to be taken and all the issues to be considered at one hearing. Only if circumstances have changed will the possibility of delay be reintroduced and a further appeal be heard. It is my belief that that new system will significantly reduce any unnecessary delay.

How many representations has the Lord Chancellor received about the new regulation, which will cost poor families seeking a visa visit to see a family friend £500? As that will cause much hardship to poor families in Bangladesh, India and Pakistan, is it not an outrage that the regulation has been put through by the negative resolution procedure, without any debate whatever in the House of Commons?

The simple answer to the hon. Gentleman's last question is no. I do not believe that the way in which the House has handled the regulation is an outrage. However, I recognise his concern. I have received a number of representations. I do not have the exact figure immediately to hand, but I will try to get it to him as soon as I can.

What plans the Lord Chancellor has to review the house equity limits in determining eligibility for legal aid. [136354]

The Government have no plans to do so. On 31 July, we published proposals that may affect the contributions that a funded client has to pay towards his legal costs once eligibility has been assessed. Consultation on those proposals closed on 20 October. No decisions have yet been made.

Is the Minister aware that my constituents—and. I am sure, many others—are being told that because their house is worth more than £100,000, which applies to almost all of them now, they cannot expect entitlement to legal aid? Is he aware in particular of the Holmes case, which figured prominently in The Mail on Sunday a couple of weeks ago—an emotional and difficult adoption fostering case, in which a family are having to pursue a dispute with the local authority through the national press because they cannot obtain the specialist legal advice that they need to pursue it through the courts, which is where it properly belongs?

The rule that equity of more than £100,000 bars one from legal aid has been in place for a number of years. The important figure for legal aid is the value of equity, not the value of a property. Only 6 per cent. of applicants for legal aid own their own houses outright, and the vast majority have equity of less than £100,000, so that particular rule does not bar individuals from getting funding in many cases.

How on earth can the Legal Aid Board justify handing out large sums of taxpayers' money to City slickers who make a fortune? They have big houses all over the place and somehow manage to get the large endowment, while constituents of mine who have not got two ha'pennies to rub together work for an employer who is not insuring any of his employees. The result is that when they have an accident, the Legal Aid Board says that it cannot give them any help because the employer has no collateral, so it is not worth pursuing him. It is time that that was sorted out.

My hon. Friend, as always, eloquently explains why there should be a cut-off limit for legal aid, and why it is entirely justifiable for people who have equity of more than £100,000 in their houses not to receive a share of scarce public resources, which can be put to much better use to help people who genuinely cannot fund their own cases.

Given that the Parliamentary Secretary's reply to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) was couched in the soothing terms for which he is renowned, will he take the opportunity to confirm that the proposal that has been issued for consultation is that the client in receipt of assistance should henceforth make a greater, not a lesser, contribution?

I will attempt to soothe the hon. Gentleman, as he assumes I soothe others. I assure him that that is correct. The proposal is that those who have considerable equity in their properties should make some contribution to the cost of the legal funding provided by the taxpayer. A number of representations have been made to us. We accept that the move will create a more level playing field between publicly funded clients and those on middle incomes, but the Lord Chancellor and I are listening to those who are objecting. We are listening positively and sympathetically to the arguments advanced in response to the consultation paper. I am due to make our announcements next month.

What progress his Department is making in developing Community Legal Service partnerships. [136355]

If he will make a statement regarding progress on the introduction of the Community Legal Service. [136357]

Following the launch of the Community Legal Service in April, the number of Community Legal Service partnerships has increased from 70 to 143, and is continuing to grow. The 143 partnerships involve 270 local authorities and cover 66 per cent. of the population of England and Wales. The CLS partnerships are working—with other key elements of the Community Legal Service, which are also making good progress—to improve the way in which legal services are delivered.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. I have a simple question: when can my constituents in Hall Green, and people in Birmingham generally, hope to realise some benefit from this promising Government initiative?

I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that, although his constituency is not yet in a CLS partnership area, the Legal Services Commission is in discussions with Birmingham city council and other potential local partners on the formation of a Birmingham CLS partnership. I very much hope that, with my hon. Friend's support, a partnership will be formed very soon.

In the context of Community Legal Service partnerships, will my hon. Friend tell me what would happen if local authorities were to cut their funding to citizens advice bureaux, such as those in Bebington and Heswall in my constituency, whose work I greatly admire?

My hon. Friend is right. Citizens advice bureaux and other not-for-profit agencies provide not only high-quality legal services in important spheres such as employment and welfare benefits, but many other services that are needed by people on modest incomes or on benefits. We must be frank, however, and admit that for many years, citizens advice bureaux and other advice centres have had a precarious existence and been uncertain of the source of future funding. The formation of CLS partnerships, examination of different areas' priorities, and local authorities working with the Legal Services Commission should provide a framework to ensure much more secure funding in the future. Ultimately, however, funding decisions on not-for-profit agencies such as CABs rest with local authorities. Partnerships can influence, but local authorities will decide.

But are the Government not seeking to impose on all local authorities, regardless of political control, an extra funding obligation without providing them with any more taxpayers' money? The Minister knows that I have raised this issue in a debate in Westminster Hall, but he may not know that since that debate, very many Labour-controlled and Liberal Democrat-controlled authorities have made the same protest as that made by Conservative-controlled authorities. Even Labour supporters are upset that they are being forced to fund the partnerships without the Government properly supporting local authorities with extra funding to enable them to do so.

As I have explained before to the hon. Gentleman—obviously it needs explaining again—local authorities are under no obligation to participate in CLS partnerships. Although the Legal Services Commission is obliged to join in partnerships, local authorities are volunteers. Local authorities decide how they control the money to purchase legal services in their areas.

If she will make a statement on the future role of the lay magistracy. [136356]

What changes she plans in the role of the lay magistracy. [136361]

The Government remain committed to the principle of the lay magistracy continuing to play a significant part in our system of justice. Sir Robin Auld is conducting a review of the criminal courts and has reached the provisional conclusion that the current jurisdiction of the lay magistracy should be preserved.

I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Will she take this opportunity to confirm that the Government's view is that the lay magistracy is rooted in the communities from which it is drawn, that it is, and has been for centuries, an essential part of the English justice system, and that it is absolutely essential that the lay magistracy's role should not be downgraded by the current or any future Government?

I think I answered that in the first part of my response, but I am happy to repeat my answer. Also, I believe that the lay magistracy now reflects a broader cross-section of society than before. The Department has achieved that by strenuous efforts, including advertising vacancies in minority newspapers and magazines. The magistrates also benefit from an extensive training programme. All those factors demonstrate the Government's continuing commitment to the magistrates and their future.

I declare an interest, as a member of the Magistrates Association. May I draw to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister early-day motion 1097 in my name, which has been signed by 135 Members, of all parties? Does she agree with the sentiments in the motion, which expresses the congratulations of the signatories on the valuable role that magistrates play in delivering local justice in local communities? Would she care to lay to rest for ever the strong suspicion among magistrates that, in the Home Office at least, there is a secret agenda to transform the lay magistracy, to remove the role of JPs and to give us more of a European model?

My hon. Friend should be reassured with regard to any future Government agenda for magistrates. We are having the Auld review, and it is sensible to wait and see the results of it. The recommendations need to be considered together, and we will do that when we receive the report. It is not for me to rule out or to guarantee any option for the future. However, I take every opportunity to restate our high regard for the work of magistrates. They are volunteers, and they deal with 97 per cent. of criminal cases in their courts. We applaud their work.

When the regional Standing Committee will hold its first meeting. [136366]

I expect the regional Standing Committee to be established and I hope it will meet before the end of the Session.

Bearing in mind the wide-ranging performances within our regions—I know that mine, in the south-east, is doing good work—will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Committee will have a free hand to look into issues; particularly local economic regeneration issues, which are so important in a number of parts of the south-east?

My hon. Friend may recall that it is intended that the Committee will take business on a motion proposed by a Minister, but he is right to identify issues such as economic development in the regions as being among those that we anticipate the Committee will want to consider, along with issues such as transport strategies, tourism, sport and culture.

Will the President of the Council confirm that the Government do not see the Committee as in any way a substitute for genuine devolution to the regions? The Committee may be helpful in allowing Members of Parliament to assess what is going on in the regions, but given the lack of progress in accountable regional government and accountable democracy in the regions—as opposed to simply regionalising Government agencies—will she confirm the Government's intentions?

The Government have always made it plain that we recognise the importance of the development of regional strategies. The hon. Gentleman says—perhaps a little unfairly—that there has been a lack of progress. However, this Government set up the regional development agencies, which I understand the Conservative party proposes to abolish. The hon. Gentleman will know that representatives of local authorities work alongside people from the business community and the wider community. He will also know that there are many ideas floating around about how else regional strategies can be pursued, and how there could be other regional representation. However, he will also know that the Government are anxious that any further move in this direction be taken at the wish of the people of a particular region, rather than as a top-down move.

Is the inadequate regional Standing Committee the Government's response to the West Lothian question? How will it be constituted?

No, it is not the response to the West Lothian question. We have long argued, as did the Conservatives in the days when they were in favour of devolution, that there is no need for a different settlement in this place, and that those who are returned as MPs to Westminster should operate as MPs in Westminster.

What proposals she plans to bring before the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons; and if she will make a statement. [136368]

The Modernisation Committee has produced radical changes to our business. I anticipate that in the near future it will be chiefly concerned with monitoring those changes. Some other suggestions, including electronic voting in the Lobby, are being considered.

I intend no discourtesy to you, Mr. Speaker, or to your colleagues, but is it not appropriate for the Modernisation Committee to consider the method of election of the Speaker—and, perhaps more importantly, of the Deputy Speakers? Yesterday a Deputy Speaker emerged—Vatican-style, with white smoke—into the Chair. I make no comment on her appropriateness, but I think that hon. Members should have an opportunity to vote on such matters.

As always, Mr. Speaker, Vatican-style elections yield the correct result. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Procedure Committee is currently considering the matter and taking evidence. The proposal is for a joint meeting of the Procedure Committee and the Modernisation Committee.

Is my hon. Friend aware that of the six hours that it took to elect you, Mr. Speaker, two were taken up with traipsing through the Lobbies? Is he also aware that our decision last week to take on a Wednesday afternoon votes that would have taken place after 10 o'clock means that we could spend considerable time—wasted time, in my view—traipsing through the Lobbies on a Wednesday? Is it not urgent that the Modernisation Committee should consider electronic voting and introduce it as soon as possible?

I hope that not only the Modernisation Committee but all hon. Members will have the opportunity to consider electronic voting. An initiative that I anticipate will come to fruition very soon is an exhibition upstairs in the Upper Waiting Hall, which will allow hon. Members to look at the technology and discuss it.

Whatever the merits or demerits of these so-called radical reforms in our procedures, do the Government intend to reverse the situation that exists on a Thursday afternoon, whereby this House meets in two different places at the same time? Is that not an absurd anomaly?

The hon. Gentleman, and all hon. Members, will have an opportunity to discuss those issues. There are different views. I believe that Westminster Hall, and earlier starts on a Thursday, are for the benefit of the House, but the House will have the benefit of that discussion, and a vote, on Monday.

Does the Minister understand the concern felt, especially among Conservative Members, that we need to do more than simply monitor the Modernisation Committee's proposals, and that there is serious unfinished business? For a start, the House has yet to vote on the question of Select Committees. I hope that he will assure the House that we will have an opportunity to vote on Select Committees, on the Floor of the House, before he starts his monitoring.

The hon. Lady took part in the debate last Thursday on the Liaison Committee's report. In my winding-up speech I said that when the dust had settled and people had had an opportunity to consider the arguments, and when the Government had had the opportunity to listen, we would review the way forward.

If she will make a statement on the Government's response to proposals from the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons. [136369]

The Government usually respond to reports from the Modernisation Committee by inviting the House to agree to changes in procedure. Sessional Orders implementing the most recent proposals were agreed by the House last week. To date, the overwhelming majority of the Committee's proposals have been implemented.

Does my hon. Friend agree that pre-legislative scrutiny is one measure that can lead to more considered and better quality legislation, and perhaps remove some of the more petty elements from our scrutiny system? Will he do everything he can to extend such scrutiny where appropriate?

Like my hon. Friend, I am very clear that pre-legislative scrutiny has been valuable. I hope that the House will have opportunities in the not too distant future to do much more of it. I hope that in the course of time, a vast amount of pre-legislative scrutiny can take place.

How many times in the past have major changes to the procedures of the House been introduced which have not been reached through consensus?

Major changes are agreed by hon. Members themselves, on a free vote. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not proposing that a small group of Members, including some of his colleagues, should be able to veto proposals that find consent among the majority of the House.

What assessment she has made of the efficacy of the arrangements made for the millennium date change. [136370]

I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave on 19 April, which appears in the Official Report at column 425W. The arrangements that were put in place to handle the millennium date change were successful, with the UK almost untouched by the bug. That did not happen by accident.

I pay tribute to the work done by my right hon. Friend and her colleagues in making sure that the preparations for dealing with the millennium bug were a success. Will she confirm that to a degree, those preparations and that contingency planning have proved relevant to dealing with the fuel issue? Does she agree that the lessons learned from the millennium bug planning could be read across, and thereby helped large companies with the contingency planning needed to lessen disruption for their customers?

On behalf of all those who did so much work on the matter, I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is entirely right: during the recent fuel supply difficulties a considerable number of companies were able to draw on the continuity plans assembled over the millennium period, not least those drawn up by the health service and various large fuel supply companies. Those involved in the work of Action 2000 have been contacted by a number of people thanking them for the work that they had done, and saying what a help it had proved to be.

What response she has had on her initiative to improve links between the Government and business. [136372]

I informed the House on Thursday 11 May of the decision to establish the business co-ordination unit in my Department—my answer appears in the Official Report at column 433W. I am pleased to report that the unit is now fully staffed and operational, and is making a significant contribution to improving Government contact with all sectors of business across the UK. The responses to the establishment of the BCU of which I am aware have been uniformly positive.

Will my right hon. Friend say whether the BCU will be of positive benefit to the chamber of commerce in Great Yarmouth? What will the new initiative target for the business community be?

I recently had the pleasure of meeting the presidents of the British Chambers of Commerce, and I can tell my hon. Friend that that organisation has very much welcomed the establishment of the BCU. Part of the unit's purpose is to ensure that a better system is devised for the many groups and bodies who want to have contact with Ministers. The aim is to establish such contacts across Government, not merely in Departments that customarily deal with the business community in their daily work.

Given that the right hon. Lady has set herself the admirable objective of improving links with business, will she say when she intends to study the speech made by Mr. Chris Humphries, the director general of the British Chambers of Commerce, on 20 January this year? He said that despite their rhetoric, the Government had dramatically increased the regulatory burdens that threaten small business competitiveness.

I am indeed aware of that speech, and have discussed the issue with Mr. Humphries. However, I am sorry and surprised that the hon. Lady—[Laughter]—I beg his pardon, I meant the hon. Gentleman. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman has not quoted some of the more recent speeches made by Mr. Humphries, which have welcomed many of the steps that the Government have taken in their partnership with business.

What response the Government have made to proposals of the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons to improve the efficient working of the House. [136373]

The Modernisation Committee was set up to propose changes to improve the efficient working of the House of Commons, which has already accepted Government motions to implement the programming of legislation and to defer voting. I anticipate that the House will shortly be invited to approve the continuation of the experiment with Thursday sittings and sittings in Westminster Hall.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the amount of work that she has done, through the Modernisation Committee, to improve the efficiency of the House and its workings. Does she agree that there is room for further improvement, as the years go by in this century, to see how best the new availability of information technology and communications systems can be brought into all our working practices, even in Committees?

I, in turn, am grateful to my hon. Friend, not least for her work on the Modernisation Committee, as well as for her remarks. She is right that the issue has been raised across the House, and I believe that the House will need to consider it. We cannot and should not turn our backs on the opportunities opened up by new technology, but should consider how it can most effectively supplement and make more efficient the work that Members carry out.